Superman or Thor: The more interesting character

Both are equal IMO. However if I had to give one an advantage, I would say Thor due to the mythos that surrounds him.

Thor because of backround.

Supes because of history.

I would say both actually. They are the characters that when a writer has touched another aspect you know it'll interest you. :)

I love superman but Thor is more interesting with all of his powers and then norse mythology, and his travels and battles across the ten realms. Better supporting cast too.

Superman

He's a deeper character

@buttersdaman000: Thor has been written for centuries, he's a much deeper character than Superman.

Both.

I prefer Thor.

Both. But I think you can do more with Thor because of him being a god. Since all those different pantheons co-exist in Marvel, not only can you set up a story based on his mythology but stories that cross over with other mythologies as well.

....................

Seems like a very random choice of characters to match up

I picked Supes (although I accidentally hit Thor for the vote).

@buttersdaman000: I'm not wrong

They're equally interesting to me but for different reasons. I look for different things from a Superman and Thor story, respectively. I only expect them to play a similar role to one another in JL and Avengers books.

k

But what's so deep about Thors non-comic mythology? By your logic is he the deepest comic character...ever?

Thor

Both

Superman.

@buttersdaman000: no. But he's much deeper than Superman. That's the question in the poll, isn't it?

Edit: and there wasn't any "logic" whatsoever so idk where or why you said that.

And what's so deep? Idk, maybe that they used old Norse Mythology stories in modern comics. There are a plethora of Thor stories written not just from Marvel, but how many Superman comics are outside of DC? None. Thor is a much deeper and translated character.

Do you know what deep means?

@buttersdaman000: depends if you want me to shed a tear or not

Superman, never really found Thor or his mythology all that interesting tbh.

I think Thor works better as a serialized character, and comics are a serial medium.

I've long been of the opinion the Superman is an exceptional character in a finite setting, but he looses interest/focus when you spread him out. Stories like Red Son and All-Star Superman are great because they can tell stories with a beginning middle and end,even if All-Star is often a clever and romantic tribute to the absurdities that became of his serial nature. The strange visitor from another planet flourishes in a three part story that ends in tragedy.

Marvel Thor =/= Mythological Thor

The same thing happened to me LOL!

Supes because of its rich history and mythology.

Its hard for me to think about it because both have been in so many stories, so many different styles of stories, with varying qualities that as characters pinning down some sort of exclusive set characterization for them as being definitive… both can be reduced to the hero, with both even Superman having a bit of the warrior as well, but usually what makes them interesting are the stories that they are in. I actually think both are average and mediocre in most stories heh heh I am fans of both for their great stories they are in.

I think in modern times Superman is the harder character to write, because with Superman you either have to write an interesting opposing force he must overcome, and I don't mean in that in the physical sense, and/or you also have to make his surrounding both believable and relatable to us the viewer but also make sense to the idea and ideals of Superman as if he was a long term factor in that world as well. Its why some writers think its better to keep Superman away from politics and certain international events, but if you keep him too far away from that he almost becomes cartoonish. Thor on the other hand can be written so many different ways and still be still be Thor because of how long he has been around, he isn't really as proactive, but his reactive side can be loud and obnoxious, but in a very sincere and understandable sense. I would rather read a story about Thor in an inescapable white box than Superman, because Thor would do more stuff and show more range, break his hand, curse Hela… then curse Loki… then curse Odin,, and probably monologue about all the other times he has been in that situation, which given his age has probably happened before. Superman would probably act more like most of us, think of a way to get out, think of loved ones etc and of course not every story will take place in such a limited setting but yeah.

Thor, he has honor but his ethics and morals are from a different time, same goes with Hercules as well. That and he has so many settings he can be put in. Then again, read so many stories where both were boring and uninspired to me I can't say either way, its really more specific stories and certain writers that tap into the qualities both characters have and deliver a compelling story. I do think Superman will always be a bigger heroic icon because more people should find him more relatable and therefore more inspirational but that also depends on the writers too. Actually in a weird possibly immature way, I think that I may think Thor is more interesting character just because we have greater potential for him and drunken Thor stories. Since Thor doesn't have to be the poster child for ethics and morals, writers can have more fun and silliness with him, he can lose his temper more, he can be more brazen and loud and so on. We won't ever see a story where Superman and Batman get drunk and try to score with giantesses.

That all being said I also agree with what stambo42 said, I think thats a great point too.

I don't have much to add considering all the great responses above (for the most part). Thor, but by a pre-existing bias for me.

Thor because of his background, divinty, and family

Thor, never bought into the Superman character.

Superman, because I like him more, which is what this all boils down to.

They are different.

Both are interesting.

Both, but I find myself being slightly more interested in Superman because I prefer his supporting characters and villains.

@sc:

Do you think making Superman into a moral poster child has actually harmed him in the long run?

Thor

I don't find neither interesting.

I think there's more to Thor than there is to superman, and his stories are more interesting.

Thor. Superman is a cookie cutter character like Captain America. Predictable.

Definitely Thor.

Superman

Thor.

Thor, I find him more consistently entertaining and I appreciate the flaws in his personality as they make him a more lovable character imo. I have nothing against Supes and I love All Star Superman but that's really all I can say about him unfortunately.

It's totally subjective, and both have their pros and cons, but Supes'll always have a special place in my heart because he and the JL cartoon did help introduce me to comics.

I still like Thor's mythos and background though.

@sog7dc: I think it has helped but hindered. My personal favorite thing about Superman is that even despite being fictional, he was instrumental in the weakening and decline of the Ku Klux Klan in the 40's. The way technology and society was set up in the past, peoples ethics and morality was more uniform. No internet, no television, travel wasn't nearly as fast as it is today, communication wasn't either, ethical and moral dilemmas still existed but it was more localized and untested. The conditions could allow for a strong icon like Superman to work as a shining beacon of morality, ethics and justice.

In modern times though, because of the internet, live television, video technology, faster travel and communication, video phones, cheaper, and smaller technology, people are confronted with more complicated and larger problems, and so more ethical and moral dilemmas. Bob Geldof was a UK rockstar who at some point in the past, because of the technological advances in video recording/capture and broadcasting, was able to through BBC news media, witness and experience the struggle of Ethiopian citizens experiencing famine and starvation. Its not that such things didn't happen before, but for the first time in history, people in first world comfort could see how other people had to experience reality from the comfort of their living rooms and that was a catalyst for wanting to help. Bob Geldof had a significant role with charity events like Band Aid and Live Aid. Many optimistic people from that era and even today, the idea of people around the world starving to death is horrible, and they want to help, but the problems and thereby solutions to such things… well they are quite complicated, involves politics, distribution of resources, distribution of wealth, ideas about economics, and human rights, and rights of corporations and are hundred by things like corruption, and greed and policing/enforcement, public opinion which can be fickle… I am getting a headache just thinking about it.

In modern times peoples opinions and ideas about what is ethical and what is moral has far more variety and diversity than ever before. So the conditions have changed greatly since when Superman was conceived and also for a greater bulk of Superman's existence as well in many ways. Since the conditions have changed its going to be hard for writers to actually be able to present Superman as ethical and moral to as many readers simply because readers opinions and ideas are so different from each other. Consider JMS Grounded storyline and how polarizing it was for so many people. If we made a thread about Superman's attitude on abortion, homosexual marriage, religion, euthanasia, foreign aid, and about the plight of the homeless, famine, starvation, the depiction of Allah in cartoons? Lots of people are going to have different and strong ideas about what Superman should think. Modern Superman writers usually understand this so they usually try and avoid putting Superman into a situation that could alienate large sections of his fan base, because on one hand Superman is suppose to be this shining beacon of ethics and morality but on the other hand, Superman is also suppose to be a shining example of humanity accessible to every single human, to do your best, be your own Superman.

Those two ideas do not necessarily have to conflict, and in the past in simpler times they did not, but in modern times its much harder and is also a reason why Man of Steel was so polarizing. For many people their ideas of Superman is that he should never kill. To kill is unethical, and an idea about Superman they hold is that he always, always finds another way. To force him into a situation where he can't find another way is not being true to Superman's ideals. For others, its unethical for Superman to not kill if the situations requires it, and that Superman showed strong ethics and honor, by killed Zod, not because he wanted to, but he had to for the greater good and that he had to do what many police officers, solders in real life often have to do because there isn't always an alternative and now he is going to be burdened like they are burdened by that action.

So modern day writers can either try and write a Superman that isn't controversial and risk the character not resonating as having strong ethics and morals except for in a very generic ad watered down way, like how many cartoon characters are just good because they are good, or they can risk having Superman make hard decisions about serious and controversial issues, deal with ethics and morality something that will demonstrate the characters relevance in modern times, but at the risk of alienating people if Superman's actions don't seem ethical or moral at all. I forget to mention that Superman as a fictional character can adapt, adapt to the times, but the modern era is a setting where its really difficult to present any character as being universally appreciated for ethics and morals because of their decisions. Also doesn't help that there are many more characters people can relate to, or identify over Superman as well. Some of them arguably are more willing to tackle controversial subjects that Superman might not be able to.

Sorry long post, but yeah I wouldn't say that being DC's moral poster child or a well know pop cultural iconic and poster child for morals and ethics has hurt Superman, there are positives and negatives. Positive's include helping the character shut down the KKK, popularizing the character, making the character a source of inspiration for millions and millions of people, helping people through hard times by being s ounce of strength, some negatives would be - limiting the characters story telling potential, making the character hard to relate to in modern times for many, making the character hard to adapt into situations where what is ethical or moral is hard to find consensus or agreement on. Potentially even making the character seem hypocritical. Alienating fans as well when Superman's morals and ethics do not align with those fans morals and ethics.

Supes

Thor because of Amon Amarth :P

I like that you added this, as if your posts were anything but :P

thor but i like supes too

Thor, by far, there is not much to supes background wise, whereas Norse mythology is very cool

Both interesting. But I voted Thor to see the results.

Superman is way too predictable of a character to be able to stay interesting. So i say Thor by far.